The pure number and strength of the writing in the comments on David Kane’s leaving EphBlog are proof of what one person can create and grow.

Perhaps this outpouring of support, however grudgingly given in some cases, will persuade David to return to us in some manner.

However, there is no question that EphBlog is changing.

This is the time, as we move forward, for creative inputs from you on future direction, management style, and how to maintain our steady stream of writings.

This is the time for creative inputs in the form of postings from you who have something to say. but haven’t chosen to say it as yet.

This is the time for creative inputs from you with programming, formatting, and other technical knowledge and skills, to offer that particular expertise that only you can do.

This is the time for us all to move forward. A decision has been made that presents a challenge to us all.

But the decision and its background are not the focus that we need to have. We need to focus on moving forward to making EphBlog the best that it can be as a forum for many and diverse topics and points of view.

52 Responses to “A time for our creative input …”

jeffz says:

Dick, given that Ephblog is, obviously, now in a transition stage, might you consider postponing stepping down as President for a few weeks until the dust has settled? Or has your replacement already been named?

First of all, I can’t imagine anyone else in the role of Pres. than Dick.

That being said, here are some comments in response to my asking a similar question in the previous thread:

bfleming:

Well I think not banishing people is the right place to start.

Maria:

Well, Ronit, people would have to realize and accept that *GASP* other people have different opinions than their own, and these are nonetheless valid and worthy of publication. EphBlog needs to become a fully public forum, one in which authors would NEVER be asked to cease writing simply because their words are found to be offensive. If EphBlog is to be a public discussion forum, it needs to adapt a purely objective stance and promote itself as a forum where everyone can speak openly, without fear of reprimand. EphBlog should exist not to skirt around issues lightly for fear of treading on toes, but to confront and debate facts and perspectives. If we want EphBlog to be lively and informative, we can’t censor ourselves.

JeffZ:

To answer Ronit’s question, David has made this decision (which those of us posting here disagree with, but it ultimately is HIS decision, so I’m not going to try to guess at his motivations beyond what he has stated)within the last 24 hours. I don’t think that, even if there is some folks who will ultimately be newly attracted to the blog (an open question), they are going to instantly start gravitating here. Reputations take a long time to change, and for better or worse, Ephblog’s reptutation is not going to change instantly. It may take months, in fact. I do hope that, if the blog ceases to be a place that attracts much in the way of interest and/or contributions in DK’s absence, he then at least considers an eventual return. I do think there have been some good half-way suggestions about how he can still have a voice here without dominating the bulk of the blog feed, but again, that’s for him to decide. As of now, I’ll just think of it as an experimental period and we can see what happens.

i’ve found on other blogs that I look forward to regular posts. While I like the randomness of ephblog, I regularly check other blogs for weekly posts I know will come out sometime on wednesday, or sometime on thursday, etc. I’m not sure what that weekly post could be (an interview?) and I realize all the ones I look forward to are funny (a funny interview?), seems like that might be cool.

Here is my content brainstorm: is the most recent photo series concluded? That was a great addition, and I’d love to see that resume, if possible. Humor, art, great youtubes (music or humor, generally), photos … all stuff that would be great to see more of. More photo ID’s like Diana used to do would be cool. I may resume an aborted series I did one post on (without any responses, but it was a busy week) awhile back in which I posted questions from Eph Trivia archives (or I’d encourage other folks to do the same), trivia is always fun and interactive … maybe tech folks could set something up so that a random blog post from ephplanet is posted on the main page at a particular time each Friday, that could be fun. Maybe a one in 25,000 (akin to the Record’s 1 in 2000) where an Ephblogger interviews a random alum each week and posts the interview on Ephblog … the possibilities for fun / quirky / humorous / lighthearted content are really endless …

also, awhile back there was some talk of making a best of ephblog tag … there have been LOTS of great posts over the years that newer readers have never been exposed to … highlighting some best-of’s from the archive would be a nice project to fill some of the content void.

I’d rather have a forum where Ephs of all different political and personal persuasions can feel comfortable participating. An impossible goal, perhaps? What I don’t want is for either site to dominate fully.

We need to create a space that allows for different views to proliferate. Perhaps the first step is to go to a more horizontal WordPress layout. A second step might be to have a “front page editor” whose responsibility is to select a diverse range of stories on different topics to feature on the front page.

I really do think this is a design challenge first and foremost. It’s possible that improving the presentation would help us to avoid losing our most productive contributor.

i’ve found on other blogs that I look forward to regular posts. While I like the randomness of ephblog, I regularly check other blogs for weekly posts I know will come out sometime on wednesday, or sometime on thursday, etc.

Great idea. I would be happy to do this if I had a topic. Reprisals of the Photo IDs have been suggested, and I think I even agreed to do it, but then I didn’t. Should I? I would rather post new pictures, but alas, I don’t have any — and the old material is new to most readers, anyway.

I would be open to doing another once-a-week series, if I had a topic. Ideas?

Why don’t you guys just switch to a rotating “guest editor of the week”? Many people don’t want to commit to blogging for Ephblog because they don’t have the time and they don’t like how it’s run. If there were weekly editors who could post whatever THEY wanted and commit to a very limited-run engagement, that might bring in some fresh voices. I’d volunteer but I’m too lazy. Or, even more radical, what if Ephblog implemented the daily/several day guest editors and the frequent posters agreed to limit the number of posts the wrote and instead just submitted tips to guest editor(s). I’ve seen a lot of people fearing the demise of Ephblog but wouldn’t it be more productive to offer solutions about what you would do differently if you ran Ephblog? Here’s your chance!

I’m going to add a few things:

There are so many underreported aspects of Ephdom that I would love to read about. Yeah, I know a lot of people play/care about athletics but what about non-athletic competitive activities? I’d personally scrap athletic reporting for a day to focus on that. That’s just one example. There’s so much stuff underreported by WSO, The Record (especially the Record) and Ephblog that I’m sure we could come up with an insanely long list of stuff people would love to read about.

But I think the thing I’d most like to say is this:
if you’re going to make changes on Ephblog, go big. Don’t be afraid to blow up the entire site and start fresh (obviously I don’t mean delete previous posts). There seems to be a fear of losing readers. So what? This is silly. This site is non-profit and is not ad supported, so it’s not like losing readers will do anything harmful to the site besides, at worst, decrease the audience. At best? Who knows. That’s the point.

If Ephblog doesn’t use this opportunity to reinvent the itself, this thread and the longer one about DK resigning was a complete waste of everyone’s time.

I was likewise blindsided by Dave’s choice to withdraw. There seems to be some student interest in providing content here, but I can’t do what I used to – I have no time. Give me a day or two, please, to see what interest there is.

Some of this is reprised from my prior comment on point, but I think any of these would make for a great weekly series (I would volunteer to take one, but that is all I can really handle in addition to being sports correspondent :)) …

I’m sure other folks could think of other ideas, but right there, that is seven, one post on each, once per week, from seven different authors, would ensure at least one new Ephblog post each day, with a lot of variety / diversity. And usually there is at least one newsworthy story to post from Google each day, between Ronit, DK and myself, we generally manage to post at LEAST one daily …

Also, if I ran Ephblog, it’d be extremely difficult for someone to be banned/deleted. Basically, I’d only ban/delete the following things:

1. SPAM (obviously)
2. People posting other people’s personal info such as addresses, telephone numbers, etc.
3. Racial, homophobic, sexist etc slurs. Not things that people might consider racist or homophobic but just flat out abusive language. If something someone writes comes across as racist or whatever but isn’t a slur, then take that up with them in the comments.
4. I will admit that I’m not sure how I’d handle gossip about people. I think that should be taken on a case by case basis. If it’s something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand and the person being talked about asks for it to be removed, I’m willing to do that. But it depends on the situation. I’m willing to allow ad hom attacks because I think that people who resort to that come across as idiots and are usually shamed in comments.

I personally don’t believe in calling people trolls and think some of the most interesting threads are those that derail. It’s not like we’re in a class where we have to get through a certain amount of material or learn certain things in a finite time period. I hate censoring people because it makes things far too complex. I prefer a hands off approach for the most part.

@JeffZ: Eph debate. Inspired by seeing an intelligence squared debate on affirmative action, take two ephs (regulars?), have them begin debating a topic, limited to 100-200 words a reply. Have them go five rounds, then let commenters jump in.

Once a week, it’d be an easy thing to manage (i’d be willing to moderate or be a debater) via emails that then got posted on, say, Wednesday. Only tricky thing, really, is getting enough people who’d be willing to debate. Crap, winning debater (based on votes in the thread) has to moderate the next week. Self-refreshing cycle!

Topics could be proposed for the next week in the thread or in a separate thread. Preferably eph related, but tangential things (like that New Yorker article) could be cool.

1) General campus news. “Best of the Record” style posts, or notable press releases. I’d put Williamstown and North Adams happenings in this category too, as well as sports. These shouldn’t be too hard to keep up with.

2) General alumni news. MSM mentions and road-running we have covered. I think we have “Morning Joe” covered.

3) Art. Photo essays, collages, etc.

4) Analysis. Obviously this will be more of an issue moving forward, because this takes a lot more time and effort, and often requires unusual facility with certain areas (I’m thinking of hwc’s college finance posts here).

5) Breaking news. Moore, Falk, Martha, Provost, etc. The style has been Howell Raines zone flooding when major issues crop up. Again, however, this takes time and effort, and likely will have to be dictated by individual authors’ interest level.

6) Misc. The randoms. Politics. Making fun of Amherst, which I guarantee will continue in spades. Idiosyncratic interests.

As you know I do not get involved in these internal discussions on Eph Blog. I have come to know lots of you and you have all been very nice to me as a sometimes regular.

Dave Kane has been especially kind to me. It was he who encouraged the ever so slightly radical class of ’57, the first class without Frosh frat rushing, to post our 50 reunion remberances on the begining of the end of frats.

I do not intend to get involved in admiinstrative matters at this late date. I do wish to thank both you and Dave for encouraging me as basically an outsider to participate.

I wish you well in the future. I hope you can survive without becoming too cautious and too polite. Inadequate decorem has never been a problem and will never be a problem for that gorgeous little college of gentlefolk in the Berkshires.

With the return of President Swart, to herd the eph-cats, I’m assuming that SwartArt will continue as a regular feature?

One additional suggestion –

When a regional alumni group has a Williams professor as a speaker, it would be great if someone who attended would write a short post about the talk. Even though there is a list of ‘faculty experts,’ it’s nice to hear firsthand that Prof. X visited, gave a talk on ‘whatever’ and that an ephblog reader/contributor highly recommends Prof. X to other groups. (If it isn’t such a great talk, no need to post.)

First of all, it is always such a treat to see your name on the comments list. I know I have gotten a lot of pleasure from hearing you talk about your Williams experience, your work, and particularly, your passionate involvement with the Civil Rights movement.

But, In all honesty, using “cautious” to describe Dick Swart is just so…well, not how I see him. Dick, as far as I know, has made the biggest outreach to bring a diverse readership to EphBlog. I served on the board with him long enough to know of all of his private efforts in this regard. As well, there has been a lovely, and consistent breath of outright bawdiness to this site since he came on, which, frankly, I find refreshing.

So, while I understand your chagrin at Dave’s decision to leave, I really hope you don’t view his exit as the beginning of a “cautious” era. I am confident this will not be the case, and hope you will drop in enough to see that for yourself. Be patient, though, as it will take time to make a transition. As has been realized by all, filling Dave’s energetic and dedicated shoes will not be easy.

Speaking of which, how about a regular post from you? There are lots of authors who would be more than happy to post for you, myself included.

I did not attribute excessive caution to Dick. It did not enter my mind. I did not attribute excessive caution to anyone in particular.

I only worry that being too tame is more of a problem for Williams than being too bold. And occassional breaches of politeness do not bother me.

Dick has sent me many private notes and I have always responded in kind. I only addresed my comment to him since he started this post and we are friends. It never, never entered my mind that anyone would interpret my post as a criticism of him.

Jr. Mom, we have had so many friendly exchanges. How could you possiblly interpret my post as being critical of Dick? I just can’t understand.

I’m so sorry if I misunderstood, Henry. It would not be the first time, that’s for sure. I suppose I interpreted your comment that way since it was addressed to Swart. And, there has been so much commentary today about what might be lost without David here, that I guess I’m just trying put forth the idea that EB can be good and fine, and rich despite his decision to leave.

Did you see this comment by Rory? Look at the third paragraph down because I think he addresses a bit of what you are talking about.

Again, I apologize for misunderstanding and hope to see more of you here. Not exactly off to a good start in making that happen though, am I? Aaaargh….open mouth, insert foot.

I wanted to respond to your concerns here– and perhaps we should let that other thread, die or at least quiet off.

I am not particularly concerned that this forum will become placid– given who we are. Nor “occasional breaches of politeness.”

I heard, from Maria today, a concern similar to yours– that the Williams campus was too “polite,” and, perhaps, that this blog was a refuge from that culture.

Perhaps– I’m listening as hard as I can, to all the voices– but– my mind moves back to Jenness House, years ago, and tries to revive the voices of Bruce Keiffer and my friends, discussing the same issues– say “we don’t play hardball” at Williams, meaning we don’t have the hard discussions. The voices sound a lot alike.

This forum will face challenges– but regardless, I do not think it will become, bland, without debate and criticism, because of this.

For several years– coming on a decade now– I have also been impressed, with the fact that Richard Rhodes, who has chronicled so much of the nuclear confrontations between nations, came from a family, filled with violence and conflict.

Because the situations, how they play out, are so similar. So when I think of the great moments of violence– Goethe, staring out, at the great dome of Cologne, collapsed, and the scarified face of the city– the people of Novi Sad, waking up, to see their bridges destroyed by our nation– I think of these, as very similar moments, to domestic conflicts.

I’m just glancing over some of the pre-Socratic writings on language as force– but if you grant that proposition– once you grant that proposition– that our words, have power, that is akin to that of physical force, then we reach another level of considerations.

Because words, then, can do harm. And the realm of language– discourse– is then one of violence, conflict, war– or of peace. How we conduct ourselves in it, matters. When worlds loose their meanings– as Thucydides said– nations fall. The physical culture crumples. Civilizations collapse.

So indeed– I take what happens here, and the public sphere itself, very seriously. I take words, and their employment, very seriously. And I am sitting in a nation where censorship– true censorship– the murder of men and women who choose to speak, to stand for something– is rampant, and has destroyed what we call ‘civil society.’

There are many ways in which we can disagree and debate, and there are protocols, and other ways of negotiating the words and the debates. Opinion here on EB flickers back and forth, like a candle, as it did for the ancients. All this has happened before.

And then, there is such a thing, as unrestrained conflict. People here– many of those who have spoken– so not seem, to see the realm of speech, as having such consequences. There is– what almost happened to the world, one morning, in the fall of 1963, due to our lack of foresight and care. There are the dangers of not having the spaces for reflection and restraint– of the pecking of the birds and the bite of the flies– of the high-pitched voices, which demand answers, and responses, now, for their own gratification.

And wish to know the private sphere– to invade it– as if, it were theirs– as if they built owned it.

There are, of course, also words which clearly do things– ‘speech acts’– “I thee wed,” for instance. In our social compact, spoken by a judge or minister, these words have clear consequences. They have — force!

So do many others.

I suppose it may come down to, whether you believe, that the pen is mightier than the sword. I do. Or maybe– to whether words, should be mightier, than force. I believe, that events such as the October Crisis, and the fall of the Peloponnese two millennia ago, show that they must– that Words must overcome force– that we must take the Words, seriously.

People here have used the excuse– ‘I’m not using actual, physical violence.’ ‘I’m not conducting an actual rape.’ Hmmm. Interesting– an interesting claim. But by which means of reason and argumentation do we actually judge the claim? What do we mean by rape– what do we call, by this name– what phenomena in the world?

For like that ‘curious word’ for ‘black folk,’ ‘ni—–,’ we can trace its use, its history, its employment. What does the President of AIG mean, if he says “Mexico has been raped?” What– are we really trying to express, by the use, of the word? What, in the world, are we referring to?

‘Russia penetrating Eastern Europe’– the meaning of that language– and Professor ——-‘s denial of its sexual meaning– is that where this conflict, on this ‘blog,’ began? The somewhat naive wish, to reduce rape, to a simple physical act– and not a political one, a psychological one, a social one, an abusive one– an act which tears at reality and memory?

The pre-Socratics, held that the world and reality, was in continuous flux– always changing– being disputed, in the words and ideas of men and women. In this sense, they were not literalists– reality was not something which was just there, stable, unchanging, clear– there was no “truth” to be found in an objective account of events, an accumulation of lists– there was only — virtue, as David recently references– the ability to exercise skill, to create events and futures, in the ever changing field, the stage of humanity.

And so back to here and the present-day– allowing everyone to do (say) whatever they want is an attractive idea– it reminds me so much, of the Zen center at Berkeley. Except– it never works. Because words have consequences. And the Zen Center is filled, with people, still arguing over how they felt, when someone looked at them funny, in a meeting, four years ago.

There are more serious matters–

One way I sometimes explained Deep Springs to students at Williams– imagine your entry, transported, by itself, to a Valley the size of Manhattan– you’re the only people there. And you have to run the College and grow the food and cook it and survive.

People usually cringed at that. Because if we talk of direct democracy and consensus government– they’re not simple things. They often lead to argument, and resentments. When I got to Deep Springs, one half of the Student Body, had moved to the lower barn, to avoid talking and interacting, with the other half.

The atmosphere– was deeply poisoned. The conflicts and resentments, hidden, — “toxic,” as the metaphoria goes. The sides drawn– the old class, recruiting for partisans in the new one– cliques formed– this was a “Body,” deeply divided, deeply unable to master, the arts of discourse and self-governance.

Yet we did– a little. We stumbled through.

Here– I see a little of the same. This camp and that, asking me to do something, about the other side– earnestly– certainly self-convinced, that they were right, and the other side wrong. (“Yet we all pray, to the same G-d.”) Sometimes– the issue was Just– sometimes, I didn’t see the issue, yet it was still Just. But to call us an open forum– no. That we have not been, really. For the agora, had its moderators, its peacekeepers.

As regards David– those who like David, and his coverage, can go to his blog, if he chooses to have one. We can quote it here, we can discuss it here. But we all know– you can’t let everyone do exactly as they please– if you let people drink all they want at the game, and bring guns, you know what you’ll get. Similarly, if you let people say whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want– you get the same thing. That’s not “free speech.”

Because there is such a thing, as verbal bullying. There is such a thing, as rhetorical ruses, and obfuscation, and– how did nuts put it today– artifice and stratagem, which reaches the level of subterfuge and deception– until “words loose their meanings.”

There are words that push people out of the room– that close discussion and consideration– that distort. There are words, whose inevitable consequence, is the destruction of nations and worlds.

How do we reconcile this with “free speech?” It isn’t easy– because it requires, first virtue (‘the fragility of goodness’) and the exercise of actual skill– excellences– Arete, in Greek. And justice (Dike–) the Greek, for balance, ‘moderation’.

These– were their G-ds– the G-ds, of democracy. We need new G-ds!

But– to use a more modern vocabulary– the restriction of the time and place of utterances, is not equivalent to the banning of ideas and viewpoints. These questions are not settled– they never are, or can be– all this happens again — (and there’s ‘flux’ rearing her head again)– did we begin all this, from a thread on the US Supreme Court’s recent decision, regarding the bounds of speech, and the preservation of civil society?– but there’s a distinction, between asking someone to restrain their speech and actions, to leave way for the other person, to cede time, and to stop to think– even to “damn well shut up for a bit”– there’s a very big distinction, between that, and censorship.

Sometimes one needs quiet, to think. Sometimes one needs a summer at one’s dachya, away from the wearying conflicts and destruction of the public realm.

For if one voice, can crowd out the others– if techniques of deception, can make the weaker argument, appear the stronger– then we have to begin to ask– how do we guard against, deception, and self-deception? By what means and methods? By what institutions, and arrangements?

It’s sort of a question of the nature of sanity.

Thus a play of words, such as civil (society) / civility / civilization. They’re all very related.

In David’s case, as a Rhetor– the word means something like, ‘master of Rhets;’ the Rhets, being units of argumentation and meaning, propositions– I don’t have to pass moral judgment. David’s rhetorical strategy– his employment of the rhets– does what it does. We can see the empirical reality, created by the ‘techniques’– there’s another ‘word,’ descended from the ancient ones.

David’s techniques– they’ve created and opened the space, of this forum. But great personalities, often do not get along, with others. His methods– have also proven– to push others out of the room. “EphBlog’s reputation,” indeed. Some people like the drama.

But– unfortunately– we can’t have so many discussions, under this house that David built, with the Founder in the room, at present. Founders tend to be– very large personalities, very– large. I can’t imagine, that we can invite the History professors in, for a follow-up discussion of graduate school and schools, and the experience of alums, at graduate school, under the status quo of this forum.

We can’t initiate that potentially, very very valuable conversation. And while I appreciate everyone’s expression of how they liked the positive aspects of our forum as it was– you’ll still find them on David’s blog!! — that conversation, is worth it for me, if it saves one Williams student, three or six or nine years of their life, doing something they don’t want to do– and cleaning up afterward.

Or: if we find a way, to help them cleanup, and move on– better than they could have, on their own.

And on and on and on and on– the potential of this vehicle, as it grows in the future– is the the potential of a Williams education, and Williams’ community, spread and continued throughout life– our ability to enrich and strengthen each other.

For the woman who posted about graduate school– I want us to strengthen her life, and to gain from the experience– to connect it to others– I want us, to bring people like her, the resources they need, to better navigate the waters. I want more.

I’m sure David will follow up, in his final and closing post, of this era of EphBlog, clarifying his vision of the potential of this forum, and leaving us with a path, a mission, and a duty to fulfill. I don’t want to steal his thunder.

But there is a potential here– a dream– something far greater, yet to be achieved.

Everyone- I have always felt that a layout change is a really bad idea. If you want to keep things on the page for longer, then make it so that authors have to keep post openings short…

I think pushing stuff into zones to be ignored would be a mistake, and decrease reading. Especially without Dave posting… what, you are going to get what exactly… three posts a week under topic headers? Bad idea in my opinion. Better to have 4-5 posts per day in the full forum.

“I only worry that being too tame is more of a problem for Williams than being too bold..”- Henry Bass

Henry- I could not agree with you more. What happens a lot at Williams, is that lame PC kind of feel good gushy unfocused PC nonsense takes over during any kind of “sensitive” controversy… especially if it involves Equal Opportunity. That prohibits honest exploration of issues and deep analysis of problems.. but what the heck, it makes everyone feel good- so what’s the harm?

That is what I see taking place here with the demise of David. I could care less if he “chose to leave on his own”… the fact is, he was pushed out by lameness. If a person leaves Williams college due to their own accord because they do not feel they can be productive there because they feel their voice is too, controversial… is that really any different that kicking someone out? More destructive in my opinion. Insidious. The sacking of Kane is a depiction of a part of the school that I have always distrusted.

Williams will definitely tell you the sun is shining as they build a parking lot on the field where town and gown once played ultimate frisbie. The school has an absolutely wonderful way of stifling controversy at the expense of those who are not sophisticated or “right thinking” enough to understand…

How is being PC nonsense forcing David out? He’s leaving on his own. If you say something that is considered UN-PC, then you ought to be prepared to have people be mad at you about it. If you don’t want to deal with the heat, then don’t say it or leave. If you feel pressured into making people feel good, then that’s all on you. People who believe the opposite of David on Equal Opportunity issues are not just PC do-gooders, they are doing the same as David, they are stating what they believe. To label someone who disagrees with an unpopular position someone who believes in “unfocused PC nonsense” is the same as someone who labels an unpopular position “trolling”. It’s just a different term to pretty much say the same thing. “I don’t like it”. If everyone should have the opportunity to stake out a position, then everyone else should have the opportunity to disagree with it. That’s equal opportunity not PC-nonsense.

I find the position that you seem to be staking out interesting. On one hand, you are suggesting that everyone at Williams likes to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy and welcome and that is not always a good thing. On the other hand, you are suggesting that when commenters make someone feel unwelcome for challenging them on something, it is wrong that they make them feel unwelcome.

I believe THIS is what can be referred to as “unfocused PC nonsense” Mainly, because it is about political correctness and makes no sense.

If someone on Ephblog were truly a victim of politically correct nonsense, they would have been prevented from saying something. Being un-PC, in your book means that you can say whatever you want AND not have to deal with the ramifications of what you said. That’s ridiculous. You can say whatever you want, even if it is an unpopular decision. People may challenge your position but you are free to say what you want to defend it. That is not called being un-PC that is called having a dissenting opinion. Someone who takes the popular position isn’t someone being PC, they are just in the majority. On face, this doesn’t mean one side is right or wrong, it just means that they have differing opinions.

If suddenly everyone on Ephblog agreed with something David said that was previously unpopular and then someone got mad at everyone for agreeing, would they be a victim of PC bullshit? Of course not.

I’m not talking about posts being deleted, I’m talking about people being outraged and saying something about it.

“People may challenge your position but you are free to say what you want to defend it.”

But that is the problem. The people who sent all these emails and refuse to blog in the precense of David are not defending anything in my opinion, they are refusing to accpet another view, or another reality… they are taking their toys and going home. That is a part of the Williams culture.. to simply ignore that which is uncomfortable… or put it into a nice little feel good box. It’s complete BS… and marginalization/ manipulation of reality. The school does it all the time with the town. They get around code, they manipulate arguments to their advantage regardless of the facts or real issues. They claim a stake for their students above common sense sometimes, if there is a fight or a problem with police… vandalism.

I am just calling it like I see it. You disagree… cool. Good on you, from your perspective. At least you are here debating this, instead of acting like some kid with in a sand box.

They’re sending him an email and saying they’re offended. They are making their position known. Perhaps they are not saying this privately but they are letting David know that they disagree with his opinion. Just he knows his opinion on something might be unpopular and you don’t, doesn’t mean that people are behaving like children. I don’t understand why people who disagree with an opinion, state they disagree and are not actually forcing someone to stop doing something are under an obligation to have a public debate about why they don’t like it. I didn’t like listening to a capella at Williams. I told my friends this and several agreed with me. I wasn’t making anyone stop doing a capella (although several times I wished that several groups would). Do my friends and I then have an obligation to go and defend why we dislike a capella in front of the entire school? I see David quitting as the same thing.

You make the claim that people are refusing to “accept another view” or “another reality”. If I think you’re full of it, I don’t think that you are stating “another reality” and I don’t think I am under any obligation to “accept another view”. I am accepting that your position exists and then sending an email saying that I think you’re position is BS. If someone quits because lots of people disagreed with them and then makes the claim that they were forced out. Then they seem to be the one denying reality and refusing the accept another view. That person seems to be the one taking their toys and going home.

The reality is that, whatever you believe, people out there will disagree with you. Sometimes more people will disagree with you than agree. Not everyone is going to sit around and have philosophical debates in public on a blog for a multitude of reasons. That’s not realistic.

It seems like a stretch to compare the politics of college policy, something that actually can prevent or allow people to do things to someone having an unpopular opinion and then quitting because so many people disagree with him (and disagreement is pretty much all the power these offended/disagreeing people have) and that makes him uncomfortable.

“Williams” does this kind of thing to control the argument. They refuse to even belittle the idea of a problem they do not want to face with a response.. and marginalize others by manipulating the atmosphere with wealth, power, and image. I am not saying anything that many people do not agree with here (at least to a degree), when I state falt out, that Williams has been damn irresponsible in terms of growth and manipulation of wealth in Williamstown over the past two decades. A lot fo “Williams people” agree with that.

How did they get the permits to build?… that is the relevant question here… why was this allowed to happen?

It was allowed to happen, becasue the college is allowed to exist within the vacuum of its choosing. In this case, they got David. They got him without expressing the way in which they got him in front of the larger audience… us. The powers within the school sacked him the way they sack everything, in private, and without fear of reprisal.

They got him behind the scenes, that is the way it is almost always done. They got him through manipulation, while protecting the image. Yeah, they got David. That is always the way I will view this sequence of events. It’s the same way the college gets a poor town kid who gets into a fight with a Williams student of color… the same way they get to a cop for arresting a drunk and belligerant woman whp happens to be gay… it is, oh so very Williams, in that way.

You’ve been manipulated by a powerfull bias Brandi. You may not see that… hell, you are not even allowed to see that.

Can you even tell me, where the Railroad tracks are in Williamstown, and how the college has manipulated property values to push Blue Collar families to “that side of the tracks”- like some towns down south, perhaps?

and of course… slly me, who am I to demand that the powers that be at Willaims College state their positions plainly, even anonimously… before this blog? Who am I, to draw the larger comparison of the typical elite prep school sacking?

Can anyone here tell me exactly what problems others at the school had with David that created this dynamic? Hell, we do not even know … no specific charges, no real and tangable input… this whole thing is bogus, and a poor reflection of the way in which the college… (perahps academics in general?), do this kind of thing.

So Brandi- Why was David pushed out of the blog? What specifically, made others want him gone in order for them to participate?

First, I guess I’d like to know what powerful bias I am being manipulated by. ZOMG, is it “the man”? I knew he had everyone down. I just knew it! Anyone who knows me knows that I think there’s a lot of stuff that is really messed up about Williams and am not at all one of those people who thinks it some utopia where nothing can go wrong. In fact, wasn’t I the person who took away points for no one saying the most un-PC thing you can say at Williams is, “I don’t like it here”?

Again, I’m really not sure how THE COLLEGE, which can affect policy, manipulating the system or public policy or whatever is the same is offended people, who can express being offended, making David fell bad but nothing else.

While many at the college might want Ephblog shut down, I highly doubt they are moving to have it shut down. We would have heard about it by now. So, I’m not sure how the college is forcing David out. Maybe he’s been manipulated by something far more powerful than the college – a public shaming?

But, please, continue explaining how this is The College’s fault the next time you take a break from writing “Conspiracy Theory 2: Ephletric Boogaloo”.

PTC–can you provide any evidence that david was “pushed out?” As is, claiming such is disrespectful to David as he’s said (at least twice) that this was his idea. Furthermore, that other people decided this forum is not for them is not a sign of being PC, it’s a sign of deciding not to go to a blog! This PC boogieman is mighty powerful.

Specific examples of problems people have had with ephblog have happened over and over again. Now’s not the time to rehash them, but just look through some of the old posts in which people threw up their hands and left.

There’s no duty to be engaged on ephblog. Leaving it is a perfectly rational reaction. I don’t go to tea party events (david: notice how i didn’t say tea-bagger! I’m learning!); is that because I’m too PC? David’s a piece of Williams as well, is he too PC? What of all the people who said they like david’s posts? Are they controlled by Williams?

You really think the college now, after 7+ years of not giving a damn about ephblog, secretly manipulated david into leaving?!? And David acquiesced? That doesn’t strike me as a feasible explanation.

It seems entirely disrespectful to david–maybe i’m wrong (if so, someone can email me)–to make him seem like a victim, like someone who lacked agency in this change. Now, it’s one thing to decry this change as a bad idea, or complain that it occurred poorly and with too little foresight. That’s different. But making it seem like David was a pawn in some chess game? cmon.

I much appreciate you apology. We have been friends too long to have this kind of diference. And I had no intention of attacking Dick.

PTC,

I do think Ephdom has a problem with excessive decorem. Perhaps considerable decorem is necessary to get faculty particiapation in this blog. I only hope the faculty will allow a little more controversy than they find really comfortable.

Years ago I wrote the Willliams adminsistration saying they should allow a little more controversy in trustee elections by allowing long campaign statements such as those in Harvard elections. I got a polite letter back telling me that, “Harvard grads may run for the office overseer, but that Williams grads stood for office of trustee.” At the time some dissidents had nominated Desmond Tutu was to run for Harvard overseer on a radical platform.” I was envious that the Williams grads unlike Harvard ones did not care about anything deeply enough to run for their beliefs rather than just standing for them.

Recently Williams had a cadidate who stood for the office of US Senate. She had an opponent that ran for the Senate seat. Running for Senate beat standing for Senate. I fear Williams will always have many who stand for things and few who run for them. Scott Brown would have been very out of place at Williams. And PTC has difficulty fitting in. If he comes back and runs for office against the college and Williams puts up someone to stand against him it may be a repeat of the recent election.

Williams once did have a candidate with deep beliefs, Herbert Lehman, who ran for the US Senate in New York and was elected several times on very liberal platforms. And his family gave Williams lots of money. But, Willaims was so offended by his brashness and liberal beliefs that it never even gave him an honorary degree.

Rory and Brandi- My critique is of the modus operandi in this affair, which reeks to high heaven of elite liberal scholar banishment, both in form and execution. I am not saying Williams threw David out, what I am saying is, the train of thought and pretense that exists at Williams caused him to leave. You think that is BS… ok. I am sorry if you misunderstood me…but I thought the sentiment was clear.

If you think I am playing the victim Brandi… well, you are wrong. I am attempting to get you to recognize something important… but perhaps that is lost on elitist pretense, or defense against being identified as an elite? I am an elite by the way. I am one of the most elite people that blogs here, in my opinion. Is elite a bad term? No, not always.

Either way, you still went to Williams, the most Elite Liberal Arts College in the World. You can deny that I suppose… deny the awesome responsibility of that, or not.

Perahaps you feel that all things are good in the Berkshires… and that Williams has demonstrated responsible economic restraint? That Williams has been a responsible steward of the local environment? That you would need more facts to come up with a conclusion?

If that is your position, or lack of a position… I do not have much to offer, because you lived there, and should already know the answer.

Brandi, PTC, and my good friend Henry Bass ’57, I appreciate the discussion that is going on:

Brandi – you are bringing a new voice and energy and ideas to this Blog. Welcome!

PTC – you townie rascal – you tell it like it is and, as we agreed, I am going to be your campaign manager when you run.

Henry – Until Prof Birnbaum showed up, I thought you, Frank and I were the earliest classes here. I am very glad you bring up Senator Herbert Lehman as an example of a man unrecognized by Williams with an honor befitting his accomplishments.

In posting this blog, I was trying to get on with the task at hand of ‘change’. And we have received very good inputs. All of these will be needed in the immediate days ahead,

I wrote a note to Henry this morning and used the film-makers term, pre-production. Who ever takes on the task of managing change and bringing about a new version of EphBlog (please God, not another Microsoft fiasco) will have precious little time to work to give the readership some deserved inkling on the screen of what that may be.

May I request that the energy in your discussion please include even more thoughts and inputs for positive action?

Dick- My honest opinion is that Ephblog should not try any dramatic changes, or shift in format. I think you should let it ride for at least six months, to see how the known forum developes, before making any changes in conjunction with the departure of David.

I am assuming your desire is to get a good grasp, some kind of a metric… for numbers of paticipants, a shift in diversity, with Kane leaving. The only way to get the best metric, is to leave as many constants in place as possible while looking at the shift because of the specific departure of Dave.

My honest opinion is that you let the changes come from new authors, in the saem forum.

For my part, I promise not to haze/ or attempt to haze anyone new who may show up- in conjunction with Dave’s departure… even though, I do not like that he has left.

I don’t think things at all are perfect and I’m sure the college probably is up to some shady shit, as all large rich entities tend to do at some point. I’m sure the college has manipulated and screwed over people in the town because that’s typically what happens when one large entity pretty much controls a town. I’m sure property values have been inflated and people have been pushed out, not unsimilar to what happened/is happening to Morningside Heights residents because of Columbia.

I guess my point is that this doesn’t have jack shit to do with David leaving. If it did, I’d find it hard to believe that David wouldn’t have said this. It’s not as though he’s one to hold back when he thinks the college is doing something wrong.

Still, PTC, I appreciate you telling me about powerful people committing oppression. I’m glad that you are helping me understand that that the little guy/gal often gets screwed over. I don’t know how I missed this during my almost 29 years as a middle class black female in America who attended an elite prep school and then elite Williams.

I have no fear of being called elite or elitist and I understand that there comes a great responsibility to fix shit if you can. Still, I’m smacking my forehead wondering how on earth I totally missed the fact that people in America still experience oppression by powerful entities. Probably because I couldn’t see through the fog of unfocused PC nonsense. Thank you the gust of focused un-PC nonsense that has cleared that fog away. Thank you, PTC.

On another note, just wanted to note that we have now survived our second day A.D.K., and the blog has not yet suffered a meteor attack, been shut down by the FBI, slid into the ocean, transmorgified into JeffBlog, or suffered any similar such ignominous end. Kudos to us!

@Brandi ’07: much as I usually agree with you, there is a grain of truth in what PTC is saying. This decision was motivated, in large part, by ephblog’s lack of legitimacy/acceptance in the eyes of the Williams establishment. That this was a political decision is pretty clear to me.

@Ronit: Ronit, people’s reactions to David’s posts may have been a result of Ephblog’s lack of legitimacy or acceptance in the eyes of the Williams establishment. Still, David resigning seems to be a result of him growing tired of dealing with the the establishment getting mad at him. How was this a political decision? It is not at all clear to me.

I guess I don’t understand how you can’t expect people to become upset if you challenge the status quo or continuously ruffle feathers? If no one is actually preventing from expressing your opinion, as in you are unable to speak out because the platform has been removed.

@Brandi ’07: I think the logical chain here is: Ephblog is seen as illegitimate because of David Kane. David Kane is not acceptable to Hopkins Hall (and other campus constituencies). Eliminating David Kane will make us more legitimate and accepted by constituencies that dislike David Kane.

My guess is that that’s not going to happen, because most of those constituencies are never going to embrace any discussion they cannot control. The only way those constituencies will embrace EphBlog is if we turn over full editorial control to them. And that’s not going to happen if I can help it.